Ave Maria or Ave Rachel Maddow?

     This week in Mass Media & Politics, we focused on truth in reporting, gonzo journalism, manufactured consent and he said she said journalism. I'm no longer a Christian, but having grown up in an evangelical home, I've heard many times that, "the truth shall set you free!"  So I'm posting a thank you today to Ms. Rachel Maddow for giving me my own set of rainbow colored truth wings and why that is so important. 
     Did you know that journalists have a code of ethics they are supposed to follow?  I didn't.  It covers everything from verifying the reliability of your sources, to giving a voice to the voiceless, as well as avoiding stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Its five main goals are to:
1.  Seek truth and report it. 
2. Minimize harm. 
3. Act independently
4. Be Accountable. 
      By my accounting, Ms. Maddow has certainly followed these guidelines while employed by MSNBC.   
     Another example of her journalistic integrity is that she refuses to fall back into the fake refuge of allowing he said she said arguments during her programming segments.  Two opposing viewpoints may be expressed during her program and she does allow them equal time.  However, she will call bulls*%t on a guest and present them with the facts when the situation calls for it.  In this way, she lets her viewers know the facts, not just the spin from a guest, and doesn't leave her viewers having to guess at the truth. This is yet another reason why she is my favorite television journalist. I wish more journalists followed her lead.
     So kudos to you, Ms. Maddow.  Keep shining on.  

 

"Fair and Balanced?"

     While focusing on the consolidation of media outlets and the Fairness Doctrine this week, I began thinking of what we really are provided by the major news outlets. Are our needs being met by the majors?  Are they reporting the news, or are they interpreting the news for us.  Are we getting a "fair and balanced" approach?  
      Of course I am using Fox's slogan, and it would be far too easy for me to rip on that company's "news" department.  But what type of format would I really like to see take shape?  Do I want the media outlets to simply report the news, free of opinion, and free of explanation?  
     Being a political junkie, I don't mind doing the extra digging to find sources which include studies and facts.  However, I unfortunately don't think most Americans want to take the time to become better informed by spending the extra amount of energy that is required to do so.  So just how do the seemingly lazy Americans become better informed on the important issues of the day?  Can the journalist "explain" the news in a non-partisan manner?  Do I want them to?  
     A recent article from the HuffPost examines this dilemma in light of the Affordable Care Act and the public's incredible ignorance regarding its specifics.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/obamacare-and-the-media_n_3950692.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
     Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans favor the components of the bill when asked.  However, if they are asked if they approve of the ACA or Obamacare, they are overwhelmingly against it.  Why the disconnect? 
     First, I think the Obama administration has failed miserably in the PR dept regarding the specifics of the bill. But back to the question, should journalists explain the specifics, or is that being partisan?  Chuck Todd, whom I have a great deal of respect for, believes they should explain the components of the bill.  And I think he's right.  Simply pointing out that kids can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 is not being partisan, it's pointing out a new fact.  I don't have a problem with that. I wonder if they're discussing this and other components of the bill on that fair and balanced news network? Nah, I doubt it.
 

The Mass Media: Shaking Their Jelly Roll

     So during the crisis in Syria, apparently the mass media felt we needed a break from the real life version of reality and gave us a slice of the new American "reality" via Miley Cyrus and her inability to properly twerk. 

     It's bad enough that we actually have to source our news stations and news journalists' work.  But now we're being prompted to watch some poor, misguided youngster try to shake her jelly roll?  Aren't there just about a million other stories out there that qualify as hard news that we need to be hearing about?  Again, how about Syria?

     And while we're on the topic of Syria, why can't we get more reporting on the DETAILS?  I'd like to hear more about Syria and their relationship with Iran and Russia.  I'd like to hear more about the insurgents.  Are they really riddled with Al Qaeda?  Would we really be helping out the same denomination of the radical element of Islam that perpetrated the 9/11 travesty?  And what about their chemical weapons?  One day, reportedly Assad was responsible for their use. The next it may have been used by his government, but not directly authorized by the Syrian president himself.  The next day we hear something different.  

     So come on, mass media.  Do your job.  Do the digging, the real investigative reporting, and find out the truth to the important stories.  The American people deserve no less than your best!

Slacktivism: Action or Futility?

Slacktivism:  actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement, e.g., signing an online petition or joining a campaign group on a social networking website.


           These days it seems we are all pressed for time.  Be it schoolwork or time devoted to a paying job, we all feel like we are running short of time.  Yet surely we still hold our own beliefs near to our hearts.  Surely we still wish to "make a difference". Thus in this new digital age, we have been given a new route or avenue by which we can express ourselves and let our views be known. 
          "Just click here!"  "Send a message to Washington!" If you're like me, you've seen countless numbers of these messages attached to news articles in your Facebook news feed.  I'll admit to clicking on many of them. I've signed online petitions and added my name to lists in order to voice my agreement or displeasure with a specific action taken by an elected official. But what has this really gotten me?  Has it really accomplished anything other than, as my granddaddy would have said, "keepin' my pressure up?"
          Actually it has.  By making me aware of certain news items, I have become more informed and have taken the time to take the only steps I know that are available to me in order to make that difference. Thankfully I can say that I have done more than just the random click here and there. I have contributed to campaigns, held meet and greets for my local state representative in my home, and placed phone calls and written to my state and federally elected officials. But I have done those things only because I am quite passionate about my political beliefs.  I find almost everything related to the political world fascinating. 
          But what about the armchair activists and slacktivism?  Have they been led by mass media outlets to believe that by making that random click of the mouse they are becoming engaged, making a difference?  Are these outlets being misleading?  I've gone back and taken a look at a few of the pages I've liked on Facebook and their calls to action. Almost every one begins with asking a reader to add their name to a petition.  The next click invariably leads to a plea for money.  I noticed that a few pages stopped at this point, but almost all of them actually went further and urged their readers to contact their state or federal representatives within the government and to let their voices and viewpoints be heard.  And I think that is an honorable and a good thing.
          So slacktivism occurs only when the reader allows it to.  Will the reader take more than just a few seconds to click on a prompt and call a senator's office or write him or her a letter?  The burden and responsibility lies with the reader. 
          How far do the readers take it?
          How far do YOU take it? 

FACEBOOK AS SOCIAL NEWS MEDIA & CONSEQUENCES

         If you're like me, you have your news mixed in with the personal happenings of your friends on Facebook.  It all began innocently enough. I'd see a news post deposited into my news feed by a friend, found it interesting, clicked the link, and read the article.  While on the outlet's page, it asked me to "like" their page to begin receiving content similar to what I just read.  "Sure," I thought. Why not?    

        And before I knew it, I was receiving more news updates in my Facebook news feed than I was alerts about what my friends and family were up to. For a short while, It was quite nice to get short stories and reports centered around issues that I cared about, particularly civil rights for the LGBT community and the ongoing fight for marriage equality. But then it ballooned into articles focused on sensible gun control measure, environmental issues, states' adoption of the controversial stand your ground laws, etc. etc.

        Now, I'm not saying that all of these topics are not near and dear to my precious, liberal heart, but where did the fun in Facebook go?  I had let this plethora of tiny news outlets drop their little bombs of information into my news feed and make it much more difficult to communicate with my friends and family. And of course, these outlets being highly politicized, never failed to trumpet the latest musings from those on the far, far right, which frequently proved to be irritating to downright rage inducing. 

       So for now, I've made a promise to myself.  I will delete almost but not all of these outlets from my news feed. I have many other reliable sources of journalism to which I can turn to remain informed.....and hopefully regain a small measure of peace from the drumbeat of political polarization.